If this is the one that was posted on the Examiner, it basically means that although it is legal for a permit holder to carry on MARTA it is also perfectly legal for police to harass those they suspect to be carrying concealed.

EDIT: Just finished reading it. Raissi has a Georgia Fireams License and was observed by MARTA security holstering a pistol, concealing it and then entering a station to buy a ticket. The security officer called for backup, stopped Raissi, took his pistol, took him to a secluded hallway and asked him for his ID, license and SSN. Raissi says this is a violation of 4th Amendment and Privary Act. Judge basically found that the MARTA security officers are free of any blame. There is some history behind it too. GeorgiaCarry.org has been trying to get MARTA to publish their firearms policy since a March 2008 change in Georgia law that now allows carrying on mass transit. MARTA hasn't played nice, of course, although they now have a policy that when you are harrassed for suspicion of carrying concealed and you are found to have a GA Fireams License they don't ask for your SSN.

FillYerHands

12-23-2009, 11:14

Once again, we find that people react to the sight of a gun. This should be no surprise.

Whether one has a permit to carry or not, if someone else sees your gun, police or civliian, it will provoke an emotional response that throws logic and law out the window. This should be understandable given the average person's training in today's media and society that guns are necessarily an implement of violence and crime and only possessed by the most vile persons. It may not be a valid response in a perfect world, but it happens, and we can rant about it or accept it and allow for it in our actions as permit holders.

Therefore, the best thing for all concealed permit holders to do is to keep your pistol concealed. Out of sight, out of mind does work. If and when you ever have to defend yourself, then you can do so legally, but then know that the same rules apply unless you happen upon very unusual and fortunate circumstances.

Personally I will still carry on MARTA.

LukeDuke

12-23-2009, 16:41

Once again, we find that people react to the sight of a gun. This should be no surprise.

Whether one has a permit to carry or not, if someone else sees your gun, police or civliian, it will provoke an emotional response that throws logic and law out the window. This should be understandable given the average person's training in today's media and society that guns are necessarily an implement of violence and crime and only possessed by the most vile persons. It may not be a valid response in a perfect world, but it happens, and we can rant about it or accept it and allow for it in our actions as permit holders.

Therefore, the best thing for all concealed permit holders to do is to keep your pistol concealed. Out of sight, out of mind does work. If and when you ever have to defend yourself, then you can do so legally, but then know that the same rules apply unless you happen upon very unusual and fortunate circumstances.

Personally I will still carry on MARTA.

Well said, FillYerHands. Personally speaking, I try to avoid riding MARTA at all costs. On the rare occasion that I do ride, however, carry is an absolute necessity. Concealed is concealed -- end of story.

W4CNG

12-24-2009, 08:59

I've always carried on MARTA and kept it well concealed. Years ago the running joke for the first fare increase was for a "Cover Charge" in case someone started shooting, you had cover......

StoneDog

12-24-2009, 10:13

There is nothing in this ruling that says permit holders can't carry on MARTA.

At worst, this ruling emboldens MARTA security and even then if you are stopped and present your GA Firearms License they can do nothing but let you on your way.

legacy38

01-16-2010, 12:47

A few things of note:

This decision is for a civil lawsuit and not a criminal case; so, it really doesn't impact the criminal procedure aspect of the equation. It does tell us how this particular judge would rule should such a criminal case reach him.

The ruling does not jive with numerous SCOTUS rulings on the subject. I doubt it would survive on appeal.